friendica.eskimo.com
I noticed Debian does this by default and Arch wiki recommends is citing improved security and upstream.
I don't get why that's more secure. Is this assuming torrents might be infected and aims to limit what a virus may access to the dedicated user's home directory (/var/lib/transmission-daemon on Debian)?
It's not directly related to the torrent or its content no. It's more related to the potential bugs in Transmission that might be exploited to propagate viruses.
Since Transmission has to exchange data with un-trusted parties, before knowing whether the data is relevant to the torrent you are downloading, anyone could exploit bugs that exist in the parsing of these messages.
So running Transmission as a dedicated user limits what an attacker may have access to once they take control of Transmission through the exploit of known or unknown bugs.
Obviously, this user need to have many restriction in place as to prevent the attacker from installing malware permanently on the machine. And when you copy over data that has been downloaded by Transmission, you'd have to make sure it has not been tampered with by the attacker in an attempt to get access to the data available to your real account.
If you just use transmission occasionally, not on a server, I would not bother with it. Either use the flatpak version for some sandboxing and similar security guarantees as having a dedicated user running Transmission, or use an up to date version (the one from your distro should be fine) and don't leave it running when you do not need to.
rm -rf /*), the only access it has is limited to the user it is run as. If it is run as root, it has full administrative privilege.Then run it as your user. It's not best practice but you do you
edit: lol
The point of security isn't just protecting yourself from the threats you're aware of. Maybe there's a compromise in your distro's password hashing, maybe your password sucks, maybe there's a kernel compromise. Maybe the torrent client isn't a direct route to root, but one step in a convoluted chain of attack. Maybe there are "zero days" that are only called such because the clear web hasn't been made aware yet, but they're floating around on the dark web already. Maybe your passwords get leaked by a flaw in Lemmy's security.
You don't know how much you don't know, so you should be implementing as much good security practices as you can. It's called the "Swiss Cheese" model of security: you layer enough so that the holes in one layer are blocked by a different layer.
Plus, keeping strong security measures in place for something that's almost always internet connected is a good idea regardless of how cautious you think you're being. It's why modern web-browsers are basically their own VM inside your pc anymore, and it's why torrent clients shouldn't have access to anything besides the download/upload folders and whatever minimal set of network perms they need.
Not only that: It protects your data. The Unix security model is unfortunately stuck in the 1970s: It protects users from each other. That is a wonderful property, but in todays world you also need to protect the users from the applications they are running: Anything running as your user has access to all your data. And on most computer systems the interesting data is the one the users out there: Cryptogrqphic keys, login information, financial information, ... . Typically users are much more upset to loose their data than about some virus infecting the OS files, those are trivial to fix.
Running anything as anlther user stops that application from having access to most of your data.